Double-barreled self-propelled guns based on "Armata": work is reported on the creation of a promising rapid-fire artillery installation

New data on promising developments on the Armata platform are announced. Recall that this is the main platform for a number of modern armored vehicles, including the T-14 tank.

According to the latest information, Uralvagonzavod specialists are working on the creation of a self-propelled artillery installation at the same Armata base. The media reports that we are talking about an SPG with a 152 mm gun with an increased rate of fire.

Such information with reference to the interlocutor is published by the information service RIA News... At the same time, no specific parameters of the rate of fire for a self-propelled artillery unit are indicated. At the same time, it is emphasized that the new ACS is necessary for the Russian Armed Forces to gain an advantage over an enemy with comparable military-technical capabilities.

At the moment, the ACS project based on the "Armata" is in the format of research work.

Specifically, it is only known that a promising self-propelled artillery gun will be equipped with an improved combat module from the "Coalition-SV". At the same time, it is also reported about the consideration of a project with a double-barreled version of the ACS turret. This option is capable of providing a rate of fire up to 30 rounds / min. The source of the mentioned news agency calls this rate of fire unprecedented for heavy artillery.

Recall that earlier there was talk about possible equipment tank T-14 "Armata" 152-mm cannon. But in the end, the first batch of such tanks was equipped with 2 mm 82A125 guns. As some experts note, while the platform itself remains unchanged, the installation of a 152 mm cannon will make an armored vehicle virtually the same tank with an increased power gun. This statement was made against the background of the lack of data on how much the platform design itself can undergo changes when creating an ACS with the mentioned caliber.

Also discussed is the aforementioned double-barreled version of the ACS in terms of the fact that the excessively high rate of fire also has its downside - the rapid depletion of ammunition.

Comments

[Andrey Yuryevich]

horse in front of the cart ... do it, then talk.

[Vladimir_2U]

So the "Coalition" was going to make a double-barreled one, just the chassis of the "Armata" is more suitable for this than the chassis of the T-90, it seems to me.

[Bogalex]

The double-barreled SAO had no advantages.
And "Msta-S" has exactly the same attitude to "Coalition-SV" as Va post - to common sense.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Bogalex

The double-barreled SAO had no advantages.

okay, nebylo say, you still add a pretentious "never" just first explain this photo fact? just do not throw arrows stating that "this is completely different", because it is also self-propelled, also artillery and also a weapon (SAO).

[Bogalex]

That is, you do not see any difference between naval installations of the Navy and self-propelled artillery pieces for the Ground Forces? But you are a joker (I hope)

[ProkletyiPirat]

well, I asked without children's excuses in the style of "this is another matter", both are CAO, and both use the same shooting techniques, both are subject to the same process "convergent evolution", but in order to understand this, you need to chew for yourself a lot of purely artillery topics, otherwise all these multi-barrels will seem fatal flaws and delirium of sofa experts together with blogger designers.

psFor those who do not know what is "convergent evolution":
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F

[Bogalex]

"And we will load 120 thousand tons into each Scania truck, just like into the Emma Marsk container ship." And just don’t tell me that "this is another matter"! They are both vehicles - read Wikipedia!
This is how your comment looks, childishly naive and ridiculous. Especially with a kindergarten postscript from the series "I'm in the house."

[bk0010]

Yes, it seems that everything turned out in the same way as on ships, where in multi-barreled turrets the guns were located in one "cradle": accuracy dropped sharply. Oscillations after the shot did not have time to calm down. The site had an article about Italian battleships, they described it well. And so, in the navy, the transition to two-gun towers was given with great difficulty, and to three-gun towers - with a huge one, barely in time for WWII.

[ProkletyiPirat]

no no no, you are confusing cause and effect, in the navy, as in the case of a coalition with two barrels, the reason for multi-barrel is that the platform is already swinging and therefore it is impossible to adjust the angles of fire between volleys. The only difference is that for the marine CAO this swing is constant, and for the land CAO only after the N-th shot.

That is, when you go to the wiki and see the TTP "rate of fire 20vys / min", then this is a technical, and not a real rate of fire, in practice it is less because there are gaps for the platform to stabilize, otherwise the projectile will go somewhere it is not clear. And if at small distances this is not critical, then at large distances it is important. Well, the rate of fire and the mass of fire in such cases is provided by the number of CAO working in a twin (synchronized aiming according to the general geo-reference), which again is impossible in the fleet due to rolling and therefore there is a multiplicity of weapons in the form of a heap of towers and barrels.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

just do not throw arrows stating that "this is completely different", because it is also self-propelled, also artillery and also a weapon (SAO).

As soon as you can fit a multi-barreled turret with a divisional cannon onto a chassis capable of moving on land on existing roads, then a multi-barreled ACS will have advantages.
For, in addition to firepower, for ground forces self-propelled guns, it is extremely important to match the cross-country ability and speed of the march to the rest of the equipment at least at the regimental level. And also the possibility of transporting one BC on our own, dimensions (for railway), chassis unification and the minimum number of pieces of equipment in the complex.
They wrote that the double-barreled "Coalition" was hacked to death precisely because with the BC it weighed like the "King Tiger". And the military did not allow the complex to be divided into a firing vehicle and TZM, since this reduced the speed of folding / deploying the battery, the speed of the convoy and required an increase in the staff of both fire batteries and the rear.

[ProkletyiPirat]

1) here initially the thing is different, not that I can, but that the author (Bogalex) wrote a predicate thesis and presented it as a "fait accompli absolute fact", to which I indicated that this thesis is false, and brought it to example counter-argument in the form of a picture.

further on your (Alexey RA) post:
2) If you wish, everything is possible, "even the refrigerator will fly if you attach a turbojet engine from a fighter to it."
3) Well, if we talk about practical implementation in a reasonable form, then you can always either reduce the recoil due to APCs, or increase stability due to outriggers, or increase the distance and recoil time. For example, steal-blurt out a multi-barreled chassis based on a wheeled chassis in a TEU \ FEU form factor mounted on a classic frame chassis (KamAZ \ Ural \ etc).
4) the double-barreled coalition was hacked to death for a completely different reason, there is a problem with accuracy, that is, it could shoot more often, but the impulse from the two barrels did not have time to extinguish, as a result, subsequent shots had an uncontrollable spread.
5) in any case, I am not a supporter of multilateralism

[Alexey RA]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

2) If you wish, everything is possible, "even the refrigerator will fly if you attach a turbojet engine from a fighter to it."

And it will cost its weight in gold.
We are talking about a mass ACS, which, moreover, must be operated and maintained by an average military personnel in average conditions, including field conditions. Wunderwaffe will not ride here - the regiment of "Mice" in each heavy division the army will not pull.

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

Well, if we talk about practical implementation in a reasonable form, then it is always possible to either reduce the return at the expense of ARS

If it doesn't work, we reduce the power of the projectile and increase the cost of the mass projectile.

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

or increase stability with outriggers

Will not give a ride - additional requirements for the position equipment, increases the mass of the empty AU, increases the folding-deployment time. 2C5 and 2C7 can not be cited as an example - these are systems of a higher level of subordination, and even the last generation.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Alexey RA

And it will cost its weight in gold. smile
We are talking about a mass self-propelled gun,

Quote: Alexey RA

If it doesn't work, we reduce the power of the projectile and increase the cost of the mass projectile.

Quote: Alexey RA

Will not give a ride - additional requirements for the position equipment, increases the mass of the empty AU, increases the folding-deployment time.

The answer to all three arguments is "not a fact, because it depends on the specific implementation".
We take and remodel outriggers, increasing their surface area, reducing travel and automating the installation / removal process. For clarity, we can cite a CAO with three longitudinal outriggers, one along the entire bottom between the propellers and two along the sides along the entire side. In such a scheme of work, the area is maximum, the extension distance is minimal, and the extension speed can be achieved by changing the design of the drive, for example, the number of connections for the hydraulic cylinders.

[Bogalex]

"dividing the complex into a firing vehicle and TPM" was not given by the industry, because it could not make TPM with the characteristics required by the military.

[Barberry25]

Well, maybe because the 406 mm Mark 7 gun, with 3 barrels in the turret, fired 2 shots per minute? And Msta from 10, and the Coalition up to 16 shots ... The problem is that it will be difficult to fire in a doublet, therefore with all the tricks we get MAXIMUM 20 rounds per minute. And what's the point to complicate and overweight the car?

[ProkletyiPirat]

1) hmm, that is, it was impossible to shoot a doublet from the trunks of one tower there? as far as I remember there were video-chronicles with such shooting.
2) as far as I know, such multi-barreled towers had a firing mode "on a small flat area (doublet)" and this is what I meant as a counter argument to the thesis:

Quote: Bogalex

No benefits the double-barreled SAO was not.

3)

Quote: Barberry25

And Msta is from 10, and the Coalition is up to 16 shots .. The problem is that it will be difficult to fire in a doublet, therefore with all the tricks we will get a MAXIMUM of 20 shots per minute. And the point is to complicate and overweight the car?

The msta, coalition, etc. The CAO with a declared firing rate of 10-16-N rounds per minute also has problems, there, in the CAO, the support base does not have time to extinguish vibrations, and as a result, for firing at long distances, the real rate of fire is reduced, compensating for it by the number of vehicles. Actually, therefore, there were requests for a multi-barreled CAO with the corresponding R&D.

[Barberry25]

but nothing that the mass of the battleship in the region of 5 tons? About the multi-barreled SAO ... you are again not in the subject, at first a double-barreled version was proposed, with an eye on the ship's AU, but since the swinging of the barrel did not go anywhere, then the rate of fire remained too high, not to mention the fact that the price / result is not in favor of the double-barreled coalition, and we ALWAYS fire at least with a battery. And how many self-propelled guns are there? Six? Here's the answer, that in a minute the battery "throws" the enemy 000 shells are at least, and a double-barreled one can fire 60-70 shots at most, provided that it will cost one and a half times more.

[bayard]

Quote: Barberry25

but nothing that the mass of the battleship in the region of 5 tons?

You didn’t confuse the battleship VI with the destroyer or the leader?
VI of battleships PMV - 25 - 000 tons.
VI of the battleships of the WWII - 35 - 000+ tons (this is not taking into account the Yamato)

Quote: Barberry25

-first, a double-barreled version was proposed, with an eye on the ship's AU

We had double-barreled ship tanks in caliber 130 mm. and there was no greater need ... Although there were proposals, but it was precisely in the variant of adapting a land vehicle for ships that it did not work. And there is not even a buildup, but a SPEED OF FUNCTION. Yes, and so far such a caliber is not needed in the fleet - there are no ships for them.

Quote: Barberry25

shooting with us is ALWAYS conducted at least by the battery.

Not always - there are different tasks.
And with a rate of fire even 20 shots / min. for another local task, 1 - 2 ACS may be enough. At the same time, they will lay down their artillery attack in a minute - the maximum. And they will immediately leave the position without waiting for an answer.
With a rate of fire of an ACS of 10 rds / min. you will have to attract twice as many self-propelled guns or extend the artillery attack for one more minute ... but this may already be fraught - the means of artillery reconnaissance do not eat bread for nothing.
I am also far from thinking that the real rate of fire can be brought to 30 rds / min. , but larger, heavier, with a larger support area and better suspension (which also dampens recoil) will allow you to achieve a rate of fire of 20 - 25 rds / min. - quite. And it will also allow to increase the transportable ammunition due to the larger internal volumes.

Quote: Barberry25

it will cost one and a half times more.

Will cost more - definitely. Both the platform and the combat module itself will cost much more than their existing counterparts. So I won't be surprised if the cost is 2 times higher than that of Msta-S or the existing (experimental) Coalition-SV. Only after all, this SPG not only has a higher rate of fire, but also a RANGE. And also the ability to fire at one target by alternating different elevation angles is also a very interesting option. And valuable.
And the old self-propelled guns will have enough work in their niche, after all, no one is going to write them off, there, even the old "Acacia" were pulled from storage bases for modernization - it's all in the case.
So a double-barreled gun on the "Armata" shasii is good.
This is right .

[Barberry25]

I was wrong .. I missed zero .. about the ship's gun, there was an attempt to enter the clearing of 130 mm guns, as then 155 mm guns for the Zumwalts were being tested. About the range and price .. that's the point .. if the price is close to 2 prices or even exceeds, this automatically kills the feasibility of their creation, since we have just that there is a shortage of modern long-range self-propelled guns, which now have to be replaced by Tornadoes and Malkas .. So that between getting 1 art division or 2 .. they will choose 2 because the money is allocated in limited quantities, not the Americans, we live on our own.

In general, I will say this - you can create a land double-barreled gun, but then you need to do unitary loading and stops ... Then yes, 1 machine can replace a whole battery ..

[bayard]

Quote: Barberry25

there was an attempt to enter the clearing of 130 mm guns, since then 155 mm guns for the Zumwalts were being tested.

I remember that story, back then we were still running around with the idea of ​​building a series of atomic "Leaders", so they were wooed for them. But, praise to Ahura-Mazda, this foolishness was abandoned in favor of a large series of pr. 22350M, and these are more than 130 mm. and it is not necessary .

Quote: Barberry25

In general, I will say this - you can create a land double-barreled gun, but then you need to do unitary loading and stops ... Then yes, 1 machine can replace a whole battery ..

This is how Coalition-SV was originally designed. Range and rate of fire are her main options. The double-barreled module for the T-90 chassis was too heavy, and the suspension was not sufficient for effective suspension damping. The Armata chassis is just right for this. And since you have already used such an expensive and large chassis, why not return to the original idea - a double-barreled line-up? Then, at the very least, the higher price will be counterbalanced by the sharply increased rate of fire.
But this is only on condition that such a double-barreled self-propelled gun will be sufficiently reliable and convenient to operate in the army.

Quote: Barberry25

.So between to get 1 art division or 2 .. they will choose 2 because the money is allocated in limited quantities, not the Americans, we live on our own.

Do you remember the demonstration of the "Coalition-SV" self-propelled guns?
How much body swing after each shot?
This is all the T-90 chassis - it is rather weak for such a weapon and such a rate of fire. And the "Armata" has seven rollers, and the suspension itself is more perfect + hull inertia is higher ... + internal volumes for a larger BC. So anyway, such a chassis is preferable.
In every way .
And if this chassis also pulls the double-barreled combat module, then the rate of fire will increase by another 60 - 70%. That is why, apparently, the topic of the double-barreled gun is being raised again - the chassis allows it.
And the modernized Msta-SM self-propelled guns, and with a new active-rocket projectile, also shows excellent results. And there are enough of them in storage.

[Barberry25]

well, if we talk about ultra-high rates, then you still have to put emphasis on it ..

[bayard]

Quote: Barberry25

The problem is that it will be difficult to fire doublet,

The fire will be fired sequentially / alternately, this is still not a ship's gun turret.

[Barberry25]

and before that you need to stabilize the self-propelled gun .. and this time .. now the rate of fire is 16 shots .. in principle, I do not see an opportunity to increase the rate of fire over 20 shots without forced stabilization as on the wheeled versions ..

[bayard]

So on it, like the opener rests on the ground before shooting.
And if on the T-90 chassis they achieved such a rate of fire - 16 rds / min. (And they planned to get 17), then a larger chassis with a more perfect suspension, and with two barrels firing alternately with an interval, say, in tenths of a second, like times and will give the desired rate of fire.
But the artillery attack can be carried out in 1 minute - the maximum, and it can be fired from an exposed position.
I know what it means to get under return fire for suppression from friends who got under this ... War is a good teacher.
And we have a war in Donbass for 8 years - enough experience.

[Barberry25]

well, this is only for heavy machines such as Malka, and because of the powerful recoil, the Coalition and Msta work without emphasis

[bayard]

Quote: Barberry25

well, this is only for heavy machines such as Malka, and because of the powerful recoil, the Coalition and Msta work without emphasis

Well, who prevents you from putting the same opener on a double-barreled gun? There, after all, the recoil force is almost the same as that of the "Malka" ... and the weight of the two shells is 152 mm. approximately equal to one 203 mm. Yes, and her chassis is seven-wheel, just like for a double-barreled gun.
And with such and such a coulter, she (the Coalition) will spit out all 30 shells in a minute.
So why bother racking your head - take it and use it, everything has already been invented, developed, tested and verified by operation.

[Barberry25]

well, they do not put it because it was not in the TK and did not come up with the idea .. and it happens .. in general, we wait, sir, as Suvorov bequeathed

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: bayard

Quote: Barberry25

well, this is only for heavy machines such as Malka, and because of the powerful recoil, the Coalition and Msta work without emphasis

Well, who prevents you from putting the same opener on a double-barreled gun?

The tactics and strategy of use interfere, the msta and analogues should be able to transfer the firing sector (up to 360gr), due to this, cross-redundancy between individual units is achieved. And the sounded stern stops will make it possible to shoot only forward. At the same time, the CAO based on the tank does not allow the installation of integrated bottom and side outriggers due to its width and the width of the Russian Railways platforms. I wrote about this above.

[bayard]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

The tactics and strategy of use interfere, the msta and analogues should be able to transfer the firing sector (up to 360gr), due to this, cross-redundancy between individual units is achieved.

So let the Msta divisions provide cross-transfer of fire, since we have them and there are a lot of them. And the "Coalition" having a much greater range, let them be used for concentrated strikes.
In addition, what prevents quickly raising the opener, to deploy the CAO body in the direction of new / new targets? After all, possessing a weapon of such power, and even with two barrels, it will not be able to fire in the "on board" position - the recoil will turn over (it is almost like that of the "Malka"), and such SAOs should be used in appropriate cases - to apply massive flurry of fire strikes (high rate of fire, the use of different elevation angles when firing at one target) from a long distance.
Due to such a high rate of fire and range, the effectiveness of their fire will be multiple ... if not an order of magnitude, superior to the effect produced by the Malka CAO.

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

At the same time, the CAO based on the tank does not allow the installation of integrated bottom and side outriggers due to its width and the width of the Russian Railways platforms.

Using the T-15 (TBMP) chassis as a base and slightly reworking it, you can try to place the side stops in the fenders, but ... this is already perversion. If the Coalition is really that successful, it can be performed in two guises:
- single-barreled SAO on the T-15 chassis, capable of quickly transferring a sector of fire for cross-fire.
- double-barreled heavy SAO with a stern opener, designed to provide massive artillery attacks and artillery suppression.

[ProkletyiPirat]

1) MSTA still provides sound work, only not for the coalition, but for the same malka.
2) a flurry of fire on land today is provided by the number of CAO, therefore "a double-barreled coalition in the form factor of a cut CAO" is corny not needed. Now, if it becomes full-fledged and can replace MSTA with an organizational staff saving on the number of cars, then the double-barreled gun is good for it.
3) I already wrote about outriggers in the sides and bottom here, roofing felts below, I don’t remember. But in any case, in my opinion, this is not really what is needed, here a different approach is needed, such that there is a total savings due to changes in organizational structures.

[bayard]

Well then, do not hover the brain, but accept (after successful tests) a single-barreled gun on the T-15 chassis. And everything will turn out in the best possible way.

[bayard]

Quote: Bogalex

The double-barreled SAO had no advantages.

You should first familiarize yourself with the history of the creation of the "Kaolitsiya-SV" self-propelled guns, it was originally designed as a double-barreled one. And not in order to shoot a doublet, but to increase the rate of fire and reduce the load (including heat) on one barrel. The T-90 chassis is certainly rather weak for such a tower. But the Armata chassis, especially if it is the T-15 chassis (and not the T-14), is more than suitable.
The rate of fire stated in the article of 30 rounds per minute is unlikely to be achieved, but even if it is 20-25 rounds per minute, this is a serious breakthrough.

To increase the rate of fire and avoid barrel overheating, rotating barrel blocks have long been used in rapid-fire guns (and machine guns). There will also be alternate firing of each barrel. As a result, the time of the planned artillery attack is halved and the ACS will be able to leave the position much earlier than it arrives in response.
Such an artillery attack can be deployed in just one minute and leave the position before their counter-battery automatics give out the coordinates for a retaliatory strike.
This opportunity is worth a lot.
And the T-15 chassis is best suited for such an SPG.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: bayard

And not in order to shoot a doublet, but to increase the rate of fire and reduce the load (including heat) on one barrel.

This is a holivar, because we will not be shown the TTZ for the coalition, and the voiced negative is much easier to solve by forced cooling of the barrel, so a doublet is quite possible as a TTZ, but was it a holivar or not. In my opinion, it was, and precisely because of the rate of fire, but not by itself, but in the context of chassis oscillations between shots (that is, for the same reason as for ships (I wrote above about evolution)).

[bayard]

Delaying the shot of the second gun for a fraction of a second will allow you to distribute the recoil somewhat in time, not to knock down the sight and prevent the projectiles from colliding in the air or the gases escaping from the adjacent barrel from the adjacent barrel. Such effects were observed in the interwar period in three (many) gun turrets on ships, with the installation of all turret barrels in one cradle. Achieved greater compactness of the tower, won in weight, but ... the shells "colliding in the air" due to the disturbances caused by the gases from the neighboring barrel, flew to hell. This happened due to the close placement of the barrels of the guns in a single cradle.
The question was solved simply - the middle gun was made a small automatic delay in the ignition of the propellant charge, and the scattering effect disappeared.
Visually, it looked like a single volley. It looks exactly the same with the double-barreled "Coalition", but a small delay in the ignition of the charge in the second barrel ensures both the absence of mutual influence of the gases emanating from the shot on the adjacent projectile, and the mitigation of recoil on the tracked chassis.

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

In my opinion, it was, and precisely because of the rate of fire, but not by itself, but in the context of chassis oscillations between shots (that is, for the same reason as that of ships

Yes, but a larger chassis with seven rollers and better suspension may be just enough for this modification of this CAO.
But the tests will show everything. Once they began to talk about them, it means that work is underway.

[ProkletyiPirat]

the shells will not collide anyway, and you do not need to delay anything (because the micro delay voiced by you), you misunderstood the original problem, I already described my idea in the neighboring posts, but you apparently did not understand it, I don’t know how to formulate it differently , so I will leave it as it is.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

So the "Coalition" was going to do a double-barreled,

And they did it.

Later, in the development process, the concept changed - it was decided that the "squall of fire" mode is sufficiently provided by one barrel. And yes, nowhere is it said that they again took up this topic. Reported only

and on the consideration of a project with a double-barreled version of the ACS turret.

Just one of the working versions, nothing more. Otherwise, it would be possible to uncover old phototoads, like this one:

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Kuz

Photoshop rules

Come on ... It can't be ... Have you really deceived? ...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Paranoid50

And they did it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7dfA9F0ys

[Bogalex]

Yes, they did nothing, calm down. What is shown in the video is not even an experimental one, but only a demo, mock-up sample. And he died before he was born.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bogalex

take it easy

"Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you where to go" ©
.

Quote: Bogalex

this is not even an experimental one, but just a demo, breadboard sample

In the video, the ACS is shown in motion, the work of the gunner (operator), the operation of the loading mechanism, and the firing of the gun itself are visible. And is this a layout?

[Bogalex]

Yes, can you imagine? Are you familiar with the concept of "working layout"?

[bayard]

This is a working / working prototype.
Layout - depicts the product.
Prototype - Demonstrates work.
But in this - presented sample, the weakness of the chassis is obvious, for about six rollers.
The "Armata" has seven rollers and a longer base, which will give greater stability, maneuverability, cross-country ability, suspension damping.
So, in any case, there is a good reason to build on its (Armata) base both samples of "Coalition-SV" - one and two-gun, and to conduct comparative tests.
It is not a fact that the double-barreled gun will prove its right to life (here 50/50), but the fact that the chassis of the "Armata" is preferable for this ACS is obvious.

[Bogalex]

Quote: Paranoid50

And they did it.

"They did it" when they passed state tests and put them into service. And so - sorry ...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bogalex

"Made", this is when they passed state tests and adopted ...

Done - this is when the conceived was embodied in iron and debugged. Accepted or not accepted into service is a completely different thing.

[Bogalex]

Yes, perhaps I agree with you here.

[ccsr]

Quote: Bad_gr

Done - this is when the conceived was embodied in iron and debugged. Accepted or not accepted into service is a completely different thing.

Here you are mistaken, because while the product is not accepted for service, it is simply the thrown out money of the Ministry of Defense or the enterprise, in the event of their initiative. Yes, such prototypes can support the pants of developers while R&D is underway, but prototypes do not play any role for the country's defense capability, they were even forbidden to be used as standard equipment, if the act of the state commission did not recommend the product for serial production. That is why such a technique was immediately transferred to an educational one, and on occasion was written off without hesitation, because it made no sense to teach someone on it, since the troops did not have such equipment.

[bayard]

Quote: Paranoid50

Otherwise, it would be possible to uncover old phototoads, like this one:

Oh yeah !!! This is one of my favorite photo-toads.

[lucul]

just the "Armata" chassis is more suitable for this

Of course more, even the name has been invented for a long time)))

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

it's just that the "Armata" chassis is more suitable for this than the T-90 chassis, it seems to me.

Is it okay that the price of such a chassis will be much more expensive than that of the T-90?
What is the point of making an expensive double-barreled self-propelled guns, if they are initially designed in order to reduce the cost of such armored vehicles in comparison with tanks - you can explain, taking into account the costs of at least a second gun and a more powerful platform for their attachment.

Quote: Nikolay Dyagelev

and in fact the advantage of the double-barreled howitzer was perfectly demonstrated.

I wonder where and by whom it was demonstrated, except in the Soviet anti-aircraft double-barreled installations, which were abandoned in favor of "shilok"?

Quote: Bogalex

The double-barreled SAO had no advantages.

Quite right, moreover, too complex design and load on the chassis deprives many of the advantages of such products over traditional ACS.

Quote: Paranoid50

And yes, nowhere is it said that they again took up this topic.

It is possible that the industry wants to sell this development to the military, so they are throwing in, just as Timokhin and Klimov are promoting the construction of ocean cruisers and aircraft carriers in the VO, slipping their articles to the inexperienced public.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Is it okay that the price of such a chassis will be much more expensive than that of the T-90?

And nothing that this chassis is already unified with three cars, but nothing that it is a seven-roller with a more perfect suspension, wider and with a more powerful engine?

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And nothing that this chassis is already unified with three cars, but nothing that it is a seven-roller with a more perfect suspension, wider and with a more powerful engine?

And how does this affect the cost of the platform itself, in order to make an ACS on it?
Here's a comparison of materials from VO:

Oleg Sienko, General Director of Uralvagonzavod, provided data on the cost of the newest Russian T-14 Armata tank after the launch of mass production. According to him, one combat vehicle will cost the customer 250 million rubles. or $ 3.7 million at the current rate.

https://topwar.ru/82567-rt-sravnil-stoimost-tanka-t-14-armata-s-peredovymi-bronemashinami-drugih-stran.html
And this is for you to compare:

The T-90S tank, which, among others, is owned by Vietnam, is by far the most popular MBT in the world. and costs $ 2,5 million. The T-72 tank, priced at only $ 1,5 million, is still considered the cheapest modern MBT in the world. Even the Russian military continues to use them as the main [strike] force due to their cost

https://topwar.ru/82567-rt-sravnil-stoimost-tanka-t-14-armata-s-peredovymi-bronemashinami-drugih-stran.html
Why do we need such an expensive platform for self-propelled guns - can you explain?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

According to him, one combat vehicle will cost the customer 250 million rubles, or $ 3.7 million at the current exchange rate.

If you think that the cost of a tank is formed only by the chassis, and that the tank chassis will be needed for the SPG, if you imagine that a double-barreled SPG will be the same weight as a single-barrel SPG, then what's the point of explaining something to you?

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

If you think that the cost of a tank is formed only by the chassis,

Don't talk nonsense - the numbers indicate the ratio of prices of real products, and the same ratio will remain for their platforms, perhaps with a slight deviation, and not in favor of Armata.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

if you imagine that a double-barreled self-propelled gun will be the same weight as a single-barreled one,

It will not be the same in weight, which is why even the specific ground pressure will change, and this will indirectly lead to restrictions when maneuvering on the ground for double-barreled self-propelled guns.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

then what's the point of explaining something to you?

You yourself would have figured out for a start how the Armata tank fundamentally differs from the T-90 and why the price differs there, then you would not have made rash statements about the use of a new platform for the SPG. First, learn how to count money, before engaging in manilovism.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Don't talk nonsense - the numbers indicate the ratio of prices of real products, and the same ratio will remain for their platforms, perhaps with a slight deviation, and not in favor of Armata.

You are frankly stupid if you think that the chassis is equally stuffed with electronics and optics, which have long constituted the lion's share of the cost of a modern tank, like the control compartment and the fighting compartment. And doubly stupid if you imagine that the armor of the SPG chassis will be the same as that of the tank, both in terms of composition and in terms of cost.

Quote: ccsr

It will not be the same in weight, which is why even the specific pressure on the ground will change,

What are you talking about, there is a straight ray of light in the darkness! So, a seven-wheel chassis with a more powerful engine will provide an acceptable LP to the ground for a heavier turret.

Quote: ccsr

You yourself would have figured out for a start how the Armata tank fundamentally differs from the T-90 and why the price differs there, then you would not have made rash statements about the use of a new platform for the SPG. First, learn how to count money, before engaging in manilovism.

Do you understand anything at all? The fact that ARVM has already been created on the basis of the "Armata" chassis, do you know? The fact that ARVs are much cheaper than a tank, even with equal booking, do you realize? So the chassis for the self-propelled guns will be even cheaper than the ARV, due to the lower reservation.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You are frankly stupid if you think that the chassis is equally stuffed with electronics and optics, which have long constituted the lion's share of the cost of a modern tank, like the control compartment and the fighting compartment.

Finish the verbiage, especially since you do not understand that, as a percentage of the cost of the tank, the undercarriage is practically the same figure for the Armata and the T-90, and due to the scale of production, the cost of the undercarriage of the T-90 is much cheaper than that of the Armata. which has not even been created for the armored division.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

So, a seven-wheel chassis with a more powerful engine will provide an acceptable LP to the ground for a heavier turret.

All this will increase the cost of the ACS - you do not cut a nifig in this either. Moreover, we were talking about a single-barreled and double-barreled self-propelled guns, and their ground pressure will never be the same. Maybe it's enough to fantasize about what you don't understand?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

? The fact that ARVM has already been created on the basis of the "Armata" chassis, do you know? The fact that ARVs are much cheaper than a tank, even with equal booking, do you realize?

And how many have been released to say that they have been put into service? By the way, the BREM-1, which is in service, has six rollers - why do they need a seventh?
Moreover, you, as an ordinary amateur, will not understand that the tank is used in direct combat, which is why its armor is reinforced, which means that the cost of such equipment is always high, including the chassis. Why strengthen the armor of ACS, if they can now hit the enemy at distances of 20-40 km without engaging in combat with him in line of sight? Do you generally know at least something from military science, or do you draw all ideas about modern battles from illiterate sources?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Moreover, you, as an ordinary amateur, will not understand that the tank is used in direct combat, which is why its armor is reinforced, which means that the cost of such equipment is always high, including the chassis. Why strengthen the booking of ACS, if they can now hit the enemy at distances of 20-40 km without engaging in combat with him in line of sight?

Are you a complete moron? I am writing to you about that, because the chassis of the ACS and tanker will be cheaperwhat would you say there about the percentage of the cost of the tank chassis.

And doubly stupid if you imagine that the armor of an SPG chassis will be the same as that of a tank. what is the composition, what is the cost.

Quote: ccsr

Moreover, we were talking about a single-barreled and double-barreled self-propelled guns, and their ground pressure will never be the same.

Do you even understand anything about elementary things? An additional pair of rollers adds track area and therefore reduces ground pressure. This is not even physics for grades 6-7, this is elementary school! Kuku!

Quote: ccsr

And how many have been released to say that they have been put into service? By the way, the BREM-1, which is in service, has six rollers - why do they need a seventh?

Why am I arguing with the senile? The adoption of the Armata complex is a resolved issue and the complex includes the T-16 BREM, no matter what you fuss about the BREM-1.

Quote: ccsr

All this will increase the cost of the ACS - you do not cut a nifig in this either.

The fact that more complex samples in themselves are more expensive does not seem to reach you.

[Bad_gr]

For some reason, no one paid attention to which chassis the variant with the double-barreled "Coalition" was being developed.

[Vladimir_2U]

By eye, a modified combination of the T-72 and T-80 chassis, but that's not the point, it's about the widely spaced front three rollers. And this shows an elongated body, a greater deflection of the caterpillar on soft ground, which means a slightly worse cross-country ability and agility. In general, a seven-wheel chassis begs for. And given the fact that the tower is a hefty bandura, the corresponding dviglo is required.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

By eye, a modified combination of the T-72 and T-80 chassis

In my opinion, it is from MSTA-S.

But somehow it did not fit, and they decided to make the single-barreled "Coalition" on the T-90 chassis.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Bad_gr

In my opinion, it is from MSTA-S.

Well, or so, the origin of the T-72-80 does not negate this.

Quote: Bad_gr

But somehow it did not fit, and they decided to make the single-barreled "Coalition" on the T-90 chassis.

Yes, probably with the insufficient characteristics mentioned, plus I think that they put an experienced fighting compartment on the first suitable chassis, if only it drove and fired.

[bayard]

Quote: ccsr

Why do we need such an expensive platform for self-propelled guns - can you explain?

The T-90 chassis for such a heavy combat module as "Coalition-SV" (even with one gun) is frankly weak - insufficient support area and, as a result, insufficiently effective recoil recoil by the suspension. The "Armata" seven-wheel chassis, especially if it is used as a base for the T-15 chasie, is more suitable for this. Even for the one-gun version of it.
The fact that they decided to use this particular chassis is the right decision, and the price ... it is an ACS with completely different quality parameters than the previous ones, and the possibilities of such an artillery mount will be better revealed on a larger and more stable chassis. In addition, after the launch of the series, the cost may gradually decrease, and the combat capabilities of the "Coalition-SV" will more than cover the higher cost.
And as cheaper SPGs in the army and in storage, 152 mm SPGs are enough. still of Soviet construction, these are both "Msta-S" and "Akatsia", which are now actively modernizing and returning to service from storage bases. But they have their own niche. And other range, accuracy, control systems.
Comparative tests will show how much the double-barreled gun will win in comparison with the single-barreled ACS. Do not forget that initially even the double-barreled "Coalition-SV" was installed on the T-90 chassis. And they refused in favor of a single-barreled version, incl. due to the lack of stability of this chassis for such a powerful weapon and a heavy combat module. Probably, work on it was postponed until the Armata platform was brought up to standard, because I remember the pictures of the Coalition-SV on its chassis from the middle of the last decade, when the Armata was first shown to the world.
It is not surprising that with the possibility of using this heavy platform, they also remembered the double-barreled version, which was excessively heavy for the T-90 Shasia, but could be just right for the "Armata".
I do not believe in the stated rate of fire of 30 rds / min. , but 20 - 25 shots / min. is a quite possible and acceptable parameter. But we can talk about a double-barreled gun seriously only if tests prove its reliability. If the double-barreled gun is finally abandoned, it is still better to install the Coalition-SV combat module on this chassis. This will provide both better running characteristics, cross-country ability, specific ground pressure, maneuverability, as well as better recoil damping by the suspension, and, consequently, better rate of fire and accuracy of fire.
And these new qualities will fully justify the higher price of the product.
Yes, and it is better to form future heavy tank divisions / corps with equipment on a single base, and as an artillery reinforcement to formations on Armata tanks, it is wiser to attach SPGs on the same platform.

And in order for the SPG to be cheaper and larger, there are storage bases with "Mstami-S" and "Acacia" - it will be "cheap", angry and massively.
And "Coalition-SV" has more exclusive tasks.
I think so .

[ccsr]

Quote: bayard

And in order for the SPG to be cheaper and larger, there are storage bases with "Mstami-S" and "Acacia" - it will be "cheap", angry and massively.
And "Coalition-SV" has more exclusive tasks.
I think so .

The fact of the matter is that no exclusive tasks in the future for expensive armored vehicles are foreseen, and the widespread use of strike UAVs in low-intensity conflicts has put a fat end to the future development of expensive tanks.
Whether we like it or not, Armata is a futile development for OUR armed forces, which is why its release is being slowed down. And foreign buyers have not yet lined up for it, which is why it makes no sense to flog the fever with the transition of new ACS to its base.
And therefore, you correctly noted - it is necessary to remove from storage those that are self-propelled guns, seriously modernize in terms of new guided projectiles, and not engage in projecting about the future platform, because the prospect of massive use of tanks in our army is slowly evaporating.

Quote: bayard

Yes, and it is better to form future heavy tank divisions / corps with equipment on a single base, and as an artillery reinforcement to formations on Armata tanks, it is wiser to attach SPGs on the same platform.

Something I do not believe in this prospect, which is why I think that Armata will not be produced in large quantities. By the way, this is how things are going since 2015:

The last time another Deputy Defense Minister spoke on this topic (I do not name his surnames intentionally), who at the Army-2018 forum (August 2018) told reporters that the Russian Ministry of Defense had signed a contract with UVZ for the production of 132 T-14 and T vehicles -15 (two battalions of T-14 tanks and one - BMP T-15) until 2021. Moreover, 9 machines, as the representative of the Ministry of Defense assured, will go to the troops for testing by the end of 2018. On December 31, 2018, the Ministry of Defense announced the beginning of state tests by the T-14 tank.

What kind of corps can we talk about if the tanks have not been ordered for the division either? I admit that the numbers are different now, but the trend is clear.

[bayard]

Quote: ccsr

and the widespread use of strike UAVs in low-intensity conflicts put a fat end to the future development of expensive tanks.

Yes, the UAVs made serious adjustments to the plans, but the examples of their successful use in local conflicts, when the opponents did not have effective air defense and electronic warfare in the theater of operations, do not give a final verdict. When serious opponents clash with sufficient countermeasures, the effectiveness of these means drops sharply. In many ways, the factor of novelty and unpreparedness played a role - the shield always lags somewhat behind the spear.

Quote: ccsr

Whether we like it or not, Armata is a futile development for OUR armed forces, which is why its release is being slowed down.

The fact is that the very concept of "Armata" was born as a compromise, like a truncated version of the T-95 - with a conventional tank caliber cannon, "in order to use the available stocks of tank ammunition" "and formulated). And right after the demonstration of this miracle to the world, it became obvious that a tank of this size, cost and complexity ... is under-armed. Its combat effectiveness is estimated to be 15% higher than that of the T-90M ... at a price 1,5 - 2 times higher ... taking into account all the difficulties with the adoption of a new platform for service, personnel training (retraining), maintenance , repairs, spare parts stock ...
And almost immediately they started talking about ... the desirability of getting ... "Armata" with a 152 mm gun.
But in this case, it will already be a completely different tank, with different capabilities and purposes. It will be a heavy assault tank capable of destroying highly defended enemy positions, destroying buildings ... In general, it will become an analogue in the specialization of the Is-2 and Is-3 tanks at the end of WWII.
It will even be able to use low-power nuclear warheads during a rapidly developing offensive operation (but this is in case of a Big and Real War).
So, in the existing guise of "Armata", the troops are not particularly needed and they do not really want it ... But in the case of its reinforced and more harmonious version, it can be adopted into service with much greater enthusiasm. With the formation of specialized tank brigades and divisions - divisions and brigades of heavy assault tanks. Using them in the most critical sectors during the assault on powerful fortified areas and the destruction of enemy fortifications by direct fire.
The very fact that they are still tinkering with the "Armata" and expect the delivery of the first batch of already serial machines this year, suggests that the idea of ​​a larger platform has not been abandoned.
And the fact that for a weapon of such power and a combat module of such weight and dimensions, a base is not at all necessary for the T-90, but namely a seven-wheel chassis, was clear from the very beginning. To develop separately, only for ACS, such is excessively expensive and irrational, when there is already such a chassis on testing. And the chassis from the T-15 (TBMP) just fits optimally. And it will be serial. And unification will be ensured.
And since such a chassis has appeared, then why not try to return to the double-barreled line-up. The double-barreled gun in the prototype was made on the chassis of the T-80, but it is obviously too small / short / rather weak for such a monster. But the chassis of the T-15 can easily pull.
It would be nice to manufacture on the "Armata" chassis both single and two-gun versions of the "Coalition-SV" module and in comparative tests to determine which ACS is more suitable for the RF Armed Forces.
Apparently this is the point.

[ccsr]

Quote: bayard

And right after the demonstration of this miracle to the world, it became obvious that a tank of this size, cost and complexity ... is under-armed. Its combat effectiveness is estimated at 15% higher than that of the T-90M ... at a price 1,5-2 times higher ... taking into account all the difficulties with the adoption of a new platform for armament, personnel training (retraining), maintenance, repairs, spare parts stock ...

I will subscribe to your every word. Moreover, the T-90M in terms of weight, crew and autoloader is generally close to the perfection of armored vehicles and the only thing that is needed is to improve or modernize its weapons and equipment.

Quote: bayard

And almost immediately they started talking about ... the desirability of getting ... "Armata" with a 152 mm gun.
But in this case, it will already be a completely different tank, with different capabilities and purposes. It will be a heavy assault tank capable of destroying highly defended enemy positions and structures with its cannon.

I think that our troops do not need this expensive tank at all, if only because powder shells are no longer very different in cost from guided rocket projectiles, but Armata itself will create big problems for those who will operate it.

Quote: bayard

The very fact that they are still tinkering with the "Armata" and expect the delivery of the first batch of already serial machines this year, suggests that the idea of ​​a larger platform has not been abandoned.

Some of our narrow-minded commanders bought into the promises of industry, reported it, and when they realized what kind of cat in a poke they got, it became scary and decided to let things go on the brakes. It seems that there is Armata, but in fact a dummy, which already scares those who ordered it - this is the only way I see this situation.

Quote: bayard

It would be nice to manufacture on the "Armata" chassis both single and two-gun versions of the "Coalition-SV" module and in comparative tests to determine which ACS is more suitable for the RF Armed Forces.
Apparently this is the point.

I think this will be an unreasonable waste of funds from the Ministry of Defense, to which the industry will willingly agree. And we need this, if it is already clear that the Soviet design idea was far ahead of its time, and we just need to competently use its legacy in armored vehicles. That is why it is time to finish all the dances with Armata, and really look at what we can improve in the T-90 - and use the allocated finances for this.

[bayard]

Quote: ccsr

Some of our narrow-minded commanders bought into the promises of industry, reported it, and when they realized what kind of cat in a poke they got, it became scary and decided to let things go on the brakes. It seems that there is Armata, but in fact a dummy, which already scares those who ordered it - this is the only way I see this situation.

In the form in which she was blinded - the way it is. The combat value does not justify the money spent, and the difficulties with commissioning and the operation itself kill enthusiasm at all.
But the fact of the matter is that such a platform was conceived back in the 80s, and the terms of reference were issued by the design bureau on the topic "Improvement". Just for a heavy tank with ultimate weapons - 152 mm. And such tanks are needed not for tank battles, not for a breakthrough and a deep raid, but for storming enemy fortified areas and cities. When, at the end of WWII, our troops were preparing to attack enemy territory, it became clear that they would have to storm cities with capital stone buildings, and a very serious caliber would be needed to destroy them and suppress highly defended pockets of resistance. It was for these purposes that the IS-2 and IS-3 were created, but since for their 122 mm. guns, not all fortifications were in the teeth, then the ISU-152 appeared - precisely as an assault weapon of ultimatum power.
This is what they remembered in the 80s, when they issued an order for a promising heavy tank, which became the T-95. Here he was just in place. And not to replace the existing MBT, but as their reinforcement in the most critical areas in assault operations.
And if they put 152 mm on the "Armata". gun, then it will be an analogue (though not a copy) of the T-95. In this form, this platform is quite in demand.
As well as the heavy BMP T-15 - for the same assault operations, because today we have little infantry and it will not be possible to go on losses of hundreds of thousands in each operation, as it was in WWII.
And the self-propelled guns of high ballistics, like the "Coalition-SV" on a six-wheel chassis, already looks unconvincing - look how it swings after each shot. Seven-roller chassis for her at the very time ... so that with a coulter, like the "Malka" - for emphasis and more effective damping of recoil.
The chassis and the Armata platform itself have been created, so why should government spending go to waste?
And an assault tank with an ultimatum caliber will be justified, no references to the fact that we have self-propelled guns, which are from closed positions ... Often during a battle, such fire support is needed immediately. It is often desirable to destroy a building / fortification with direct fire, so as not to lose momentum and avoid unnecessary losses. And if such a tank was created, and the weapon was also created and tested, then why not return to the correct terms of reference?
You won't need too many such tanks - about five or six hundred will be enough. but on the other hand, a combination of heavy assault tanks will appear in each direction, capable of becoming the hammer that will crush the enemy's defenses with the highest efficiency.
I have been writing from Donbass and have been here for the 8th year already, so I had the opportunity to compare the effect of hitting a building with high-explosive tank shells, and the consequences of such hitting 152 mm buildings. shells. Roughly speaking, if a tank shell pierces a hole in the building with a maximum diameter of 1 m and takes out a couple of partitions, then 152 mm. the shell brings down the whole staircase. That is why such a caliber in a heavy assault tank will have an absolutely ultimatum character.
That is why it is worthwhile to return to the terms of reference of the late USSR "Improvement".

Quote: ccsr

Soviet design thought was far ahead of its time, and you just need to competently use its heritage in armored vehicles.

This is exactly what I would like to end my post with.

[ccsr]

Quote: bayard

And an assault tank with an ultimatum caliber will be justified, no references to the fact that we have self-propelled guns that are from closed positions ...

I do not think that this is justified, given that there was no massive use of armored vehicles even in the first war in the Gulf, and they did not storm Belgrade either. I have no idea where we will need such a tank now, after the successful use of the CD in Syria - even kill it, but they have no prospects with modern weapons systems. But a tank of the T-90 type will be useful to us for a long time - this is obvious to me.

Quote: bayard

I have been writing from Donbass and have been here for the 8th year already, so I had the opportunity to compare the effect of high-explosive tank shells hitting a building,

I sympathize with you, but do not misunderstand me that if it were Putin's will, we would have long ago wiped out the entire Ukrainian army without Armata. But he does not want a lot of blood, that's why you suffer, and believe that future conflicts in Russia will go with the use of heavy tanks.

Quote: bayard

That is why it is worthwhile to return to the terms of reference of the late USSR "Improvement".

I will tell you honestly - and then some of the military had a roof on their heads and they thought that they would fulfill any wish they wanted. As a result, we could not give people a better life, which later led to the collapse of the USSR. I hope we will not step on a rake in Russia - with this we will end the discussion of such an ambiguous product as Armata ...

[Login_Off]

Then they will say that the work on an initiative basis and the military are not interested.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Login_Off

work on a proactive basis and the military is not interested.

The retired military would be glad to know the names of these "amateur initiators" who want to make the MTO services of the units a nightmare, providing the units themselves with a great variety of equipment with a similar purpose. I understand that the fuel service has already been finished off?

[NDR-791]

Quote: Login_Off

Then they will say that the work on an initiative basis and the military are not interested.

I think while they will say so. This technique will become in demand only when Armata goes to massively replace the current MBT. At the moment, a self-propelled gun firing at the enemy from at least 30 km to put on the base of the "first line" machine is too wasteful. And so, yes, I welcome such a development. At least so, and it is much better than dispering engineers to trade in markets like in the 90s.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Is everything so clear? On the contrary, the same 152-mm "Akatsia" is much cheaper than a tank. Perhaps it will be possible to find an acceptable combination of a powerful gun and good armor.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Is everything so clear? On the contrary, the same 152-mm "Akatsia" is much cheaper than a tank.

I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth. This is just how I see it according to the economic situation and the timing of rearmament. Yes, the same Acacia was altered three times until they came to the result. There, the chassis is generally created from two: on the basis of the Krug air defense missile launcher, which, in turn, was created on the basis of the SU-100P experimental automatic control system, and received the "Object 303" index.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: NDR-791

There, the chassis is generally created from two:

And "MSTA-s" has a prefabricated hodgepodge made of a chassis based on the T-80 and a motor from the T-72.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Is everything so clear? On the contrary, the same 152-mm "Akatsia" is much cheaper than a tank.

In your phrase, too, not everything is so unambiguous, for example, if you take a tank of the "3.NN" generation (the same armature) and install on it a hybrid gun with special OFSs suitable for both a flat and howitzer and mortar trajectories, then Due to this type of GBT, it is possible to make organizational changes (reduce redundant equipment, primarily armored SAO howitzers and SAO mortars), and thereby save money. That is, even if the development itself or the GBT instance itself is more expensive in terms of cost, then the end result may still come out cheaper.

[spectr]

Now, due to the elections, the Ministry of Defense has frozen part of the development until 2024. Therefore, in the main, only those go on an initiative basis, i.e. from the profits of enterprises.

[ccsr]

Quote: Login_Off

Then they will say that the work on an initiative basis and the military are not interested.

And so it will be - the industry always hopes that among military customers suckers prevail and they can sell any stupidity, it is only necessary to lure them into free development.

Quote: ROSS 42

The retired military would be happy to know the names of these "amateur initiators" who want to make the MTO services of the units a nightmare, providing the units themselves with a great variety of equipment with a similar purpose.

Among civilian developers, there are such unique people who are great specialists in the technical part of creating military equipment, but they simply do not have the simplest knowledge about operational use and technical operation in the troops. That is why they carry all sorts of garbage to the customer's table, completely not understanding why they are denied and are not going to adopt them, as they believe, "ingenious developments". They don't know the real life of the army, so they don't understand that not everything they create is suitable for the military.
This was the case in Soviet times, but then the industry was more adequate, and now, of course, the level of technical and military culture is not the same for both customers and developers.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: ccsr

Among civilian developers, there are such unique people who are great specialists in the technical part of creating military equipment, but they simply do not have the simplest knowledge about operational use and technical operation in the troops.

Immediately I remember the first version of the nuclear submarine "Object No. 627".

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

horse in front of the cart ... do it, then talk.

Correct remark. Either the skin of an unkilled bear, or a horse in front of the cart, or:

 Show / Hide text

The oatmeal boasted that it was born with cow butter.
Boasts, boasts, and falls from the breeze.
Do not shout about yourself - let others say about you at least quietly.
A ringing is heard, but what's the point in it.
He who praises himself does not exist on that path.

Incidentally,

 Show / Hide text

It's been a long time since you've turned your back on the audience. I already forgot that there was such a user ...

[AUL]

IMHO, development for the sake of development. You can make both 2 barrels and 8, the question is - what for? What do they want to achieve from the increase in the number of trunks? Increased rate of fire? Thrash in one gulp, or what? So from a volley, either the tower will turn, or all the mechanisms in it, or the chassis from a couple of volleys will blow! And if in turn ... Everyone, probably, noticed how, after a shot, the tank sways for 2-3 seconds. And what, at this time, still shoot, into the white light? IMHO, modern AZs provide quite acceptable rate of fire. And there is no need to increase entities ...

[Ross xnumx]

Quote from AUL

Everyone, probably, noticed how after a shot 2-3 seconds the tank swayed.

 Show / Hide text

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote from AUL

You can make both 2 barrels and 8, the question is - what for?

I approve of you! ' And is it worth the candle?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Two barrels are needed for rate of fire to avoid overheating problems. And the increased rate of fire is needed to neutralize the active protection systems of tanks and the increased power of fire impact.

[AUL]

Well, the problem of overheating of barrels was solved successfully, for example, by sailors. They took and organized water cooling of the barrels, even for the main battery. So who's stopping you from screwing a barrel for a couple of hundred liters of water and a pump to the tower? An inelegant solution, say, no nanotechnology for you? But it is simple, reliable and much easier than sculpting two barrels, two AZs for the sake of a completely unnecessary (due to the swinging of the tank) rate of fire. And how much cheaper - needless to say!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

We have already tried this more than once. It doesn't work, you need a lot of water, like the Maxim machine gun. In addition, one barrel does not provide the required rate of fire.

[AUL]

Well, this question can be solved. You can attach a radiator with a fan. You can take not 200, but 500 liters of water - anyway it will be easier than a double-barreled system. Which, by the way, will also overheat. And for heels of shots of water and a single-barreled gun, and then it's time to get out, until they spotted.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It doesn't work, you need a lot of water, like the Maxim machine gun. In addition, one barrel does not provide the required rate of fire.

Coalition-sv has a forced barrel cooling: after a shot, a liquid is injected into the barrel.
One of the reasons for the rejection of the second barrel on the "Coalition" was the rocking of the barrel after the shot. That is, it was not possible to significantly increase the rate of fire with the help of the second barrel, compared to the single-barrel version. The double-barreled version of the "Coalition" had advantages, but not great, but the cost increased significantly.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I must admit that I do not know the question in all the intricacies, but perhaps they want to limit themselves to a shorter barrel with ballistics from 2C3.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Two barrels are needed for rate of fire

Yeah ... and the "increased rate of fire" to get a lot of problems! And how much will the rate of fire be increased so that the two-headed art would be able to fire a couple of dozen shells without any problems?

[JD1979]

Suddenly it's not the 40s of the last century) the tank has a stabilizer. The hull of the tank rushing through the potholes is still not swinging so much, but the barrel is level and shooting on the move is a common thing.

[Nikolaevich I]

In addition to all other technical problems, there are also stabilizers, and 2 more!

[pyagomail.com]

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

do it, then speak.

If you do, but do not say, you will be the first to say that "excessive secrecy, more publicity is needed." Practically only now we learn about many weapons designs developed in the 30s - 70s of the last century: the same four-track tank, for example. Or maybe a deliberate leak of information (as the US deceived us with ESR). Therefore, dont thief is bi happy.

[alch3mist]

how the USA deceived us with ESR

Strategic Defense Initiative?

[pyagomail.com]

Quote: alch3mist

Strategic Defense Initiative?

I'm sorry. ESR is a medical term, it should have been SDI, aka "Star Wars". But whoever is in the subject, he understood.

[venik]

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

horse in front of the cart ... do it, then talk.

=======
Well, the horse should be ahead of carts[/ b]! Worse when the cart turns out ahead of [b] horses!

[aszzz888]

At the moment, the project of ACS based on "Armata" is in the format of research papers.

It's too early to count chickens!

[ccsr]

Quote: aszzz888

It's too early to count chickens!

There is quite interesting material on Armata, where, in my opinion, the prospects of this tank are described quite accurately:

In this case, I really want this prediction of mine to never come true. But, unfortunately, it is as follows: the short, albeit widely publicized, history of the innovative Russian and the world's only third-generation tank, the T-14 "Armata", seems to have come to an end. Contrary to the promises of the Kremlin, contrary to the promises of developers and manufacturers, the army will never get Armata for anything other than military trials.
The "Armata", alas, is most likely destined to remain in the history of the domestic military-industrial complex with the nickname "ceremonial tank" that is offensive for a well-conceived, albeit damp combat vehicle. And it’s sad to forever stand in the exposition of the famous museum of armored vehicles in Kubinka near Moscow. So that for decades to wake the visitors of the Patriot Park, the favorite brainchild of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergei Shoigu, sorrowful thoughts: “We were almost able to make the best tank in the world. But we didn't succeed. The authorities spent the country's easy money on something else ”. It is reported by Rambler. Why all of a sudden such pessimism? It is inspired by several official statements that have been made on this issue recently.
First and foremost: according to a press release from the RF Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces will not receive a single T-14 Armata tank this year. Even for military trials. Although at the beginning of 2019 it was officially announced that the first batch of 12 T-14s will enter the RF Armed Forces at the beginning of this year. And the military tests of the "Armata" should have been going on for a long time in the 2nd Guards Taman Motorized Rifle Division of the Western Military District.
In fact, the replenishment of the Russian Ground Forces in 2020 will amount to only, as it is written in the official paper, "more than 120 modernized T-72B3M tanks." Which are a deeply modernized version of a combat vehicle, the development of which was started back in the Soviet Union in 1967.
To this, apparently, we should add the T-90M Proryv battalion kit, already supplied to our military Uralvagonzavod in April. They say it's just a great car. But still not the long-awaited "Armata". In addition, our tankers, as follows from the above-mentioned press release, will not see new "Breakthroughs" until the very Christmas trees.

It is reported by Rambler. Further: https://news.rambler.ru/weapon/44147193/?utm_content=news_media&utm_medium=read_more&utm_source=copylink

[mark1]

Also discussed is the aforementioned double-barreled version of the ACS in terms of the fact that the excessively high rate of fire also has its downside - the rapid depletion of ammunition.

The rate of fire, I suppose, will not be a constant value, 30 rpm is the maximum, made a fire raid and dyru.

[Konnick]

For such an ACS, the layout of the Armata, with its rear engine compartment, is absolutely unsuitable, or the platform needs to be very much rebuilt. They would have completed Armata, otherwise they rush from side to side. Or maybe they have already thrown the annoying toy and took up a more relevant and promising topic. Although the Ministry of Defense has already abandoned the double-barreled gun, UVZ is not the first time to step on a rake.

[D16]

it is necessary to rebuild the platform very much

The early "Coalition", the photo of which is posted above, was on the T-90 chassis, with a rear MTO position. If you really need it, there is a ready-made T-15 with a front MTO.

[Errr]

Quote: Konnick

For such an ACS, the layout of the Armata, with its rear engine compartment, is absolutely unsuitable, or the platform needs to be very much rebuilt.

Why doesn't it fit there? We remove the head of the T-14, put that of the "Coalition-SV" (improved) and voila.

[Bogalex]

How simple it is with you ... You even wonder why people study at technical universities for five years and then grow in design bureaus for fifteen years to at least some significant position!

[Login_Off]

Almaty (platform), T-15 BMP has an engine in front.
Armata is a platform, not a tank.

[nobody75]

I think people just want to see how the platform will behave when installing a 152 mm gun. Based on the results, it will be concluded that the 152 mm caliber tank gun has been finished. The Americans also planned the Abrams as a mobile anti-tank defense point, but during the Gulf Wars they used "Birdies", which reduced the time for Boyd's cycle. And we still have a "carousel" - a new tactical device. There are no words - only feelings ...
Personally, after the Gulf Wars, I had a question: "What was Saddam taught at the General Staff Academy?"
Sincerely

[Peak]

Quote: nobody75

Personally, after the Gulf Wars, I had a question: "What was Saddam taught at the General Staff Academy?"

In general, data on Saddam's diligence and abilities in mastering military science are classified, so we can only say that - What he was not taught at the academy...

And they did not teach him that his own "elite", officials and generals, would so easily be sold to the Americans for green papers.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: PiK

And they did not teach him that his own "elite", officials and generals, would so easily be sold to the Americans for green papers.

Well said!

[nobody75]

And they did not teach him that his own "elite", officials and generals, would so easily be sold to the Americans for green papers.

Did they have a way out? Before the outbreak of the second Gulf War, Saddam deployed an army to repel a Turkish attack ...
Therefore, the "generation of murderers" on hummers to Baghdad and arrived ...
Sincerely

[Griffith]

They taught clearly better than Afghans Americans.

[Ros 56]

Nonsense, two barrels, they will only interfere with each other.

[Yuri V.A]

According to the recollections of eyewitnesses, the results of work on the shore during the exercises of two AK-130 barrels always delighted the management.

[Ros 56]

For leadership, they always make a show, how can we at our age do not know such things. Who wants to look pale?

[Galleon]

Quote: Ros 56

They always make a show for the leadership,

What window dressing? 45 rounds per barrel per minute - AK-130 operating mode. A fantastic weapon if not for the 142 intermittently sticking contact switches. But at the shooting, when you see his work, you feel happy.

[Errr]

45 rounds per minute is for one barrel, in total, it began to be 90.

[Galleon]

Quote: Herrr

45 rounds per minute is for one barrel, in total, it began to be 90.

So.

[Errr]

Das ist fantastic!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

On ships, the cooling of artillery barrels is carried out by water, on land there is no such possibility, a full-fledged repetition on a self-propelled gun will not work.

[Galleon]

The AK-130 is air-cooled. Working pressure in the line is 150kg / cm. AK-630 is also air, it turns the barrels there at the same time. Maybe once before there was water, but why test the barrels for corrosion?

[Galleon]

I already wrote an answer about air cooling: I had a good friend, and I climbed with him to install it, I heard reports from his foremen, how much air was full. But I decided to check myself before answering you, got on the Internet - and you're right. 30 years have passed, something is forgotten, please accept my apologies.

[alch3mist]

The AK-130 is air-cooled. Working pressure in the line is 150kg / cm.

Not only cooling, but also an ejector. Without cleaning from the powder gases, the barrels flew apart at times.

[Galleon]

Now I remembered: Volodka even had a term: a water jacket near the barrel.

[Ros 56]

And where was this weapon used in combat ???

[Galleon]

And in what hostilities was the last time the fleet used its guns? Maybe that's why it was not applied because no one wanted to experience it for themselves. The use of naval artillery in general is almost a landmark event.

[Yuri V.A]

Well, not without this, although it is also necessary to be able to present beautifully, but this is not about that - in this case, the second barrel was not an obstacle.

[Konnick]

two guns

We have already passed this stage, but now they took it out of the chest again. Weight, difficulty, etc. Better one barrel, but good, with a reliable automatic loader. If something happens to the chassis and you are immediately deprived of two guns. Another lack of truly new ideas. Another cut?

[75 Sergey]

Is it necessary to make an ACS based on the T-14 chassis, there are completely different operating conditions, at least a body is needed only with bulletproof and fragmentation protection, i.e. easier?
Although unification in terms of components and assemblies is needed, but not necessarily with the T-14

[SARANCHA1976]

And that the two-barreled coalition is already in the troops? Well, yes, this is the second part of Guy Ritchie's film ... Only the "cards" need to be replaced with the military-industrial complex

[Basarev]

the high rate of fire also has its downside - the rapid depletion of ammunition.

Don't you find that this depletion of ammunition is not a problem with the SPG, but with the logistics and production of shells?

[Zaurbek]

Here you need to think about some points:
1. The weight of such an SPG is the T-14 cart itself + a tower with two 1522 long guns 52 cal.
2. Do you need such a rate of fire if you can use MLRS
3. Cost / efficiency of 2-barrel and 1-barrel with the use of GLONASS shells.
4. Mot be, instead of such heavy systems, to rethink the Malka 203mm on a new chassis and with a new barrel? Prospects for range are higher there and the power of the projectile is high.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The idea, it seems, is not a bad one, but what will happen with its implementation? Of course, it is tempting to neutralize all the advantages of enemy tanks, with their good armor and active defense systems, with several 152-mm shells in a row. But will it be possible to solve the associated problems with increased weight, high silhouette and the accompanying weak armor of the tower?

[spectr]

Perhaps the swing, as always, is more abrupt and opponents can be not only tanks. The increased density of fire with a good targeting system will theoretically allow this technique to be used against low-flying targets. The bourgeois are already trying to shoot down missiles from cannons.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In theory, both the Coalition and MSTA could already do this, hit air targets with shrapnel shells. I believe that if they want to use the Armata platform, then this is for the observed purposes by direct fire, but here are only assumptions.

[riwas]

Specifically, it is only known that a promising self-propelled artillery gun will be equipped with an improved combat module from the "Coalition-SV".

It will be a self-propelled gun "Coalition-SV", but on a different chassis, but it would be necessary to have a tank with a 152-mm cannon to support MBT with a 125-mm cannon.

[evgen1221]

One zhurnalyuga apparently saw a photo-toad with a double-barreled self-propelled gun for the first time and let's pour out fantasies into the network. Well, in order for it to look true, it is necessary to attribute it, according to an unnamed source in the military-industrial complex and the design bureau, at worst.

[Bogalex]

It seems to me that this is another informational stuff ...
The double-barreled version of the CAO layout was abandoned at the initial stage of work on the "Coalition-SV" theme precisely because such a CAO did not give any advantages in the rate of fire over the classic one. The salvo firing of 152-mm guns cannot be sustained by any chassis. Well, perhaps, "Mouse" from a Cuban ... And for the time until after a shot from the first barrel the self-propelled gun stops swinging and it becomes possible to fire a shot from the second barrel, the first barrel can already be reloaded. If you can expect some kind of increase in the rate of fire of a double-barreled SAO, then by a percentage, not several times.
In general, how technically illiterate do you have to be to believe a multiple increase in the rate of fire of a large-caliber CAO relative to the number of its barrels?

[Konnick]

In general, how technically illiterate do you have to be to believe a multiple increase in the rate of fire of a large-caliber CAO relative to the number of its barrels?

Theorists are like that. It's just that UralVagonZavod is trying to get something from the Armata project. The main goal is to load production, they do not think about the final result. By the way, the "Mouse" was two-gun.

[Bogalex]

So they and so remained the only manufacturers of self-propelled artillery guns. What difference does it make to them than to load production facilities with "Mstami", "Coalitions" or some fantastic double-barreled guns. It seems to me, on the contrary, it is more profitable for the manufacturing enterprise to drive the equipment mastered in production - there is less chance of a stream of complaints from the troops for handicrafts suffering from a bouquet of "childhood diseases" and the failure of the state defense order. So I think that the legs of this "news" are not from "UVZ" growing.
Well, as in fact - time will tell.

[Konnick]

No, the Msta self-propelled guns are produced at Uraltransmash, in Yekaterinburg. "Coalition" at ChTZ.

[Bogalex]

Your opinion is deeply mistaken.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/8785241

[Konnick]

And where did I go wrong? Here is a screen from your link

Uraltransmash is a separate company, part of Rostec. And more adequate personnel work there than at UVZ.

[Bogalex]

Quote: Konnick

<...> "Coalition" at ChTZ.

Where did you get the information that the "coalition" was produced at ChTZ - Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant?

[Konnick]

ChTZ has only an engine, the rest is Uraltransmash.

[Bogalex]

And the gun, probably, at the "9th" plant ... But this is not a reason to declare JSC "9th plant", Yekaterinburg, the manufacturer of the CAO, right?

[ccsr]

Quote: Bogalex

It seems to me that this is another informational stuffing ..

Quite right, and you are absolutely correct in pointing out why large-caliber double-barreled self-propelled guns are futile.

[Bogalex]

Thanks! But, as you can see, not everyone agrees with us.

[Bogalex]

Quote: Konnick

<...> And more adequate personnel work there than at UVZ.

And can you see the link to your official report, as a competent expert, from which this statement follows?

[Pavel57]

Do you need a heavy tank chassis for an SPG?

[Normann]

This is certainly good, but where are the real combat vehicles that have been tested and are mass-produced?

[FANTASTRON1]

"Marine" double-barreled gun to make land? Cool!
But she shoots barrels alternately in bursts. How will it be with aiming? Where will the chassis go after 10 shots in a row? How to cool? To carry a cistern of water with you? Plus an artillery cellar for shells. Typical cut.

[dub0vitsky]

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

horse in front of the cart ... do it, then talk.

Everything is being done correctly. It is necessary not only to do something in the design bureaus ourselves, but also to direct potential enemies on the path of maximum waste of the budget. As the Russian scientist Ufimtsev did, prompting the Americans to spend a trillion dollars on the creation of an invisible airplane, unarmed, unable to fly, and successfully killing their pilots with a bailout system.

[dub0vitsky]

Quote: FANTASTRON1

"Marine" double-barreled gun to make land? Cool!
But she shoots barrels alternately in bursts. How will it be with aiming? Where will the chassis go after 10 shots in a row? How to cool? To carry a cistern of water with you? Plus an artillery cellar for shells. Typical cut.

You got excited. Fire raid and kings. Away from the answer. Badly? Good.

Quote: bk0010

Yes, it seems that everything turned out in the same way as on ships, where in multi-barreled turrets the guns were located in one "cradle": accuracy dropped sharply. Oscillations after the shot did not have time to calm down. The site had an article about Italian battleships, they described it well. And so, in the navy, the transition to two-gun towers was given with great difficulty, and to three-gun towers - with a huge one, barely in time for WWII.

They learned to fight with hesitation after the shot back in the Russo-Japanese War. 1904, firing volleys.

[tank64rus]

Why fence a vegetable garden and "" The "Coalition" were going to make a double-barreled one, "That's not why.